Forum Thread

New divisions, new war

The famous quote of Lord Ismay, that the purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” has recently been proven once again in the middle of the Turkish-Russian crisis; and not only Germans, but all Europeans.On November 24th, NATO countries held an extraordinary meeting after the downing the Russian fighter jet by the Turkish Air Force. Turkish officials said that Russia had violated their country’s airspace on the border with Syria. Turkish officials applied to the NATO alliance to secure support.

The pretext was clear: the 4th Article of the North Atlantic Treaty. It proposes consultation over military matters when "the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened". The real aim, however, was different: to push another NATO state into a serious confrontation with Russia. The Turkish President-cum-Sultan Erdogan, rightly understood that the second largest military force in NATO could not challenge Russia alone. Additionally, his protectors in Washington were seriously worried by recent steps made by their European allies.

After the Paris attacks, French President François Hollande tried to bypass NATO by appealing instead to the EU to invoke its mutual-assistance clause. The common security policy of the EU has always been seen as the most difficult but yet indispensable part of building a sovereign Europe. Common threats and coordinated actions could bolster the creation of more efficient and independent institutions; independent from NATO, of course. Taken together with the talks about future French-Russian cooperation in Syria, and the anxiety of the Atlanticists becomes understandable.

The famous quote of Lord Ismay, that the purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” has recently been proven once again in the middle of the Turkish-Russian crisis; and not only Germans, but all Europeans.On November 24th, NATO countries held an extraordinary meeting after the downing the Russian fighter jet by the Turkish Air Force. Turkish officials said that Russia had violated their country’s airspace on the border with Syria. Turkish officials applied to the NATO alliance to secure support.

The pretext was clear: the 4th Article of the North Atlantic Treaty. It proposes consultation over military matters when "the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened". The real aim, however, was different: to push another NATO state into a serious confrontation with Russia. The Turkish President-cum-Sultan Erdogan, rightly understood that the second largest military force in NATO could not challenge Russia alone. Additionally, his protectors in Washington were seriously worried by recent steps made by their European allies.

After the Paris attacks, French President François Hollande tried to bypass NATO by appealing instead to the EU to invoke its mutual-assistance clause. The common security policy of the EU has always been seen as the most difficult but yet indispensable part of building a sovereign Europe. Common threats and coordinated actions could bolster the creation of more efficient and independent institutions; independent from NATO, of course. Taken together with the talks about future French-Russian cooperation in Syria, and the anxiety of the Atlanticists becomes understandable.

It depends upon the gravity of the violation of the border. Our country is deliberating on whether or not to extend preferential treatment to millions of people that have crossed over our borders illegally. On the other hand Turkey is willing to start WWIII over a plane crossing their border. Probably not WWWIII but ColdWar III with the associated military arms build up is the objective. Or whatever. If it was truly a unilateral action by Turkey, then I believe that sovereignty needs to be examined.

It's all Russia, why the interest in Turkey? Please examine the history of Turkey and you will see why this nation is so volatile with it's neighbors. There is a history of conflicts among several countries on the border with Turkey. It hasn't been too long ago that Crimea was stolen by Russia from Ukraine. Look what Ukraine has done recently by cutting off power to Crimea. Ukraine is pushing Putin's number and now Turkey is slamming Putin by saying don't even think about taking any of our territory. Putin is sneaky and calculating and will stop at nothing to seize property and in Syria's case any part of Turkey seized is great with Assad. I believe Putin has a plan to get closer into Syria and Assad is part of the plan. Assad will not last long after Russia enters into the political game, he's just fodder for Russia's goals. One thing Putin has to be careful with is NATO, which has dogged his military in the Baltic (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain) and Eastern Europe with Ukraine and several 13 smaller countries that used to be Russian satellites). Putin has to be careful and take things in small chunks, like he did with Crimea. Crimea is not finished , yet, because in the near future the world will see how the Ukraine will take back their Crimea. Please inform yourself of how the U.S. is training the Ukrainians and many weapons are coming into the Ukraine from all over Europe and the U.S. There will be a showdown soon with Putin. As with Turkey, Putin has seen the reaction from his test of the Turkish border. Putin has another problem and that is with that country Georgia, which does not like Russia. The games world leaders play!

pr Wrote: Just to recap what you said without all the military BS and wind AMC - Putin would make the perfect Republican candidate for POTUS. Too bad he's not "native born"

I doubt it; Putin is no Trump; as well likes horse riding with a naked chest (ever seen Trump on a horse?) I also doubt if he is an evangelical; he goes hunting on Sunday's. Watch out he may mingle in with the refugees and become an American and run for the "boss" position of the Pentagon. Ha ha.

Yes it's true that Putin is not religious at all, but you cannot find a Republican candidate that appeals to ALL Republicans. That's why there are so many clowns on the stage yet.

However,what many Republicans like about Putin is that he, like Trump, is an authoritarian bully who never, never admits he is wrong. It's a sign of weakness to admit you made a mistake. And speaking so authoritatively on bullshit is something that they both do pretty well.

Yes it's true that Putin is not religious at all, but you cannot find a Republican candidate that appeals to ALL Republicans. That's why there are so many clowns on the stage yet.

However,what many Republicans like about Putin is that he, like Trump, is an authoritarian bully who never, never admits he is wrong. It's a sign of weakness to admit you made a mistake. And speaking so authoritatively on bullshit is something that they both do pretty well.

Reinforced by virtue of their success they become sociopathic oracles. They can't say anything wrong or make a mistake because everything they do or say is infallible. Right by virtue of their source.